Precision Air, Inc. v. Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that complaint is “well-plead” so long as it puts the opposing party on notice of the claim brought against it
• providing that complaint is “well-plead” if it puts opposing party on notice of claim brought against it
• finding a complaint that is vague and lacking in detail is still well-pleaded “if it puts the opposing party on notice of the claim being brought against it”
• “[T]he purposes of [the Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Doctrine]…include eliminating the employer’s risk of being held liable for a tort-based judgment after having paid compensation benefits.”
• principles of contract, not tort, law control recovery by third party against employer where recovery is sought under indemnification clause of contract
• “We review de novo a ruling . . . denying a motion to dismiss.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).